Gopi Velu Alias Velu Gopi v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC18 Mar 2026B.A./2146/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Search terms: regular bail; BNSS 2023 Sections 483, 484; IPC Sections 406, 409, 420, 120-B, 464, 467, 468, 470, 471; BNS 2023 Section 318(4); civil dispute versus criminal breach of trust/cheating; non-supply of goods under agreement; prolonged judicial custody since 20.09.2025; chargesheet filed; Kotwali P.S. Case No. 21/2020; Chief Judicial Magistrate Ranchi; conditional provisional bail in B.A. No. 10345 of 2025; Jharkhand High Court bail on civil-nature grounds.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Ranchi in connection with Kotwali P.S. Case No. 21/2020. ¶¶29

Gopi Velu Alias Velu Gopi Vs the State of Jharkhand — Cheating and Forgery | Jharkhand HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, in judicial custody since 20.09.2025 in Kotwali P.S. Case No. 21/2020 (Sections 406, 420 read with Section 120-B IPC, chargesheet submitted), is entitled to bail, the dispute being contended to be prima facie civil in nature.

¶¶28

Court's answer

On going through the FIR, the Court found that the informant and the petitioner had entered into an agreement for supply of goods to the extent of Rs. 6,40,995/- which were not supplied; the complaint was instituted for defiance of the terms and conditions of the agreement and culminated into an FIR on inquiry conducted as per the direction of the jurisdictional Magistrate.

¶¶10

Ratio / Principle

Considering that the petitioner was languishing in judicial custody since 20.09.2025, the chargesheet having been submitted, and the case prima facie appearing to be in the nature of a civil dispute, the Court held that the bail application deserved to be allowed.

¶¶28

Key takeaways

The petitioner was directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Ranchi in connection with Kotwali P.S. Case No. 21/2020.ratio¶¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail application under Sections 483 & 484 of BNSS, 2023 allowed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) on 18.03.2026 in B.A. No. 2146 of 2026. Petitioner Gopi Velu @ Velu Gopi, in judicial custody since 20.09.2025 in Kotwali P.S. Case No. 21/2020 (Sections 406, 420 read with Section 120-B IPC; chargesheet submitted), argued absence of ingredients of cheating, breach of trust, conspiracy and forgery-related offences and that the dispute was purely civil. Perusing the FIR, the Court found the dispute arose from non-supply of goods under an agreement worth Rs. 6,40,995/-, the FIR having followed a Magistrate-directed inquiry into the complaint, and held the case prima facie civil in nature; bail was accordingly granted on a bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two like sureties to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi. Reference was noted to provisional bail earlier granted in B.A. No. 10345 of 2025 conditioned on payment of Rs. 7,25,000/- (50%), which remained unexecuted due to the present custody.

¶1

2026:JHHC:7520

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

B.A. No. 2146 of 2026

¶4

---------

¶5

Gopi Velu @ Velu Gopi, aged about 45 years, Son of Velu, Resident of 8/243, Marimathu Gounde Thottam, Palayam, P.O., P.S. and District- Coimbatore, State- Tamil Nadu

¶6

… Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opp. Party ---------

¶7

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

¶8

----------

¶9

For the Petitioner : Mr. Kaustav Roy, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Prabhu Dayal Agrawal, Spl. P.P.

¶10

----------

¶11

02/Dated: 18^th March, 2026

¶12

The instant application has been filed under Sections 483 & 484 of BNSS, 2023 for grant of bail in connection with Kotwali P.S. Case No. 21/2020 registered under Sections 406, 420 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate at Ranchi.

¶13

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even accepting that an amount of Rs. 6,40,995/-, which is the part of the agreement, has not been paid in favour of the informant, but it does not amount to attract the ingredient of Section 420 of the IPC corresponding to Section 318(4) Of BNS, 2023.

¶14

Further, it has been submitted that even there is no ingredient of Section 406 and 120-B of the IPC in the present case.

¶15

It has further been submitted that the nature of dispute is purely civil. And the petitioner is lying in judicial custody since 20.09.2025.

¶16

Further, submission has been made that the petitioner has although been alleged in one another identical nature of case, in

¶17

Page | 1

¶18

2026:JHHC:7520

¶19

which, he has been directed to be released provisionally by granting provisional bail.

¶20

While passing the said order dated 16.02.2026 in B.A. No. 10345 of 2025, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has passed the order of provisional bail making it conditional to make payment of 50% of the amount, i.e, to the tune of Rs. 7,25,000/-.

¶21

But the fact here is that since the petitioner has not been released due to involvement in the present case, therefore the order dated 16.02.2026 passed in B.A. No. 10345 of 2025, has not been carried out.

¶22

It has further been submitted that even in the case the FIR has been registered under Section 406 of the IPC along with Section 409 of IPC has also been alleged to be committed by him, there is no ingredient of Section 464, 467, 468, 470, 471 of the IPC.

¶23

Mr. Prabhu Dayal Agrawal, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail.

¶24

This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the First Information Report and found that the informant and the present petitioner had entered into an agreement for supply of goods to the extent of Rs. 6,40,995/-, but the same has not been supplied, therefore, the complaint has been instituted for defiance of the terms and conditions of the agreement, which finally culminated into an FIR on the inquiry being conducted, as per the direction of the jurisdictional Magistrate.

¶25

This Court, considering the fact that the petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 20.09.2025 in a case where the chargesheet has already been submitted and the instant case prima facie

¶26

Page | 2

¶27

2026:JHHC:7520

¶28

appears to be in the nature of civil dispute, is of the view that the present application deserves to be allowed.

¶29

Accordingly, the instant bail application stands allowed.

¶30

In consequence thereof, the petitioner named above, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Ranchi in connection with Kotwali P.S. Case No. 21/2020.

¶31

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

¶32

18^th March, 2026 Samarth

¶33

Page | 3

Gopi Velu Alias Velu Gopi v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopi Velu Alias Velu Gopi v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jogendra Tiwari Alias Yogendra Tiwari Vs State through Enforcement Directorate ,Ranchi through Additional Director

M/S Baidynath Enterprises through Its Authorised Representative Jogendra Tiwari Vs State through Enforcement Directorate Ranchi through Additional Director

Ms Prashant Traders, through Its Representative Jogendra Tiwari Vs the State through Enforcement Directorate Ranchi through Additional Director

Birendra Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Md. Tabrej Alias Md. Tabrej Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Md. Saddam Hussain Alias Saddam Hussain Vs the State of Jharkhand